Talk:Lord Nicholas Windsor

His Serene Highness Prince Nicholas of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Duke Nicholas of Saxony

Where does this information come from? The British Royal Family gave up this title in 1917. Saying Lord Nicholas would be called HH Prince Nicholas of Kent had the Letters Patent not been passed is right, but how would he be essentially still known as His Serene Highness Prince Nicholas of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Duke Nicholas of Saxony? I can understand maybe because he would have inherited this from Prince Albert, but the family abandoned this title, as opposed to the Ducal Family of Coburg, which lost the title, but didn't relinquish it. This is like saying the Prince of Wales should be known as Prince Charles of Greece and Denmark because that's his father's birth title, despite him relinquishing it. Morhange 01:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Philip couldn't have relinquished the titles of prince of Greece and prince of Denmark. There are no provisions to do so. He merely stopped using them, the same as the Norwegian Royal Family stopped using the Danish princely title. The same goes for the Saxon titles. They merely were not used in the UK. Abroad, some members who "relinquished" their German titles used them (eg, Princess Edwina of Battenberg). You are wrong on the matter. Charles 23:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The princely titles of members of the Greek and Danish royal families are held by custom, not law -- and it was never a matter of law. Therefore it is, at the very least, debatable that Philip could not relinquish them because "there are no provisions to do so". I agree with you that it may be more accurate to say that his Greek and Danish titles are suppressed or have fallen into desuetude than to say that they could never be resumed, but this is a matter of tradition, whereas you state it as if it were a matter of law. See http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/f1670b5f1c76809b

To cite the 1st Countess Mountbatten of Burma as an example of someone who resumed use of a relinquished title is misleading, since it is only documented that she and her daughters signed into a hotel registry as "Prinzessin von Battenberg" in 1959 at the invitation of the proprietor of a hotel in the town of Battenberg which the family was visiting: this was a one-time, sentimental use of this defunct title, not an assertion of a legal right to it. I entirely agree that the Battenbergs merely relinquished the use of their princely title in the UK in 1917, but this kind of specious evidence simply makes that fact look like POV dogmatism rather than a reasonable alternative to their current styling. See http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/8d47051e6250a92c Lethiere 14:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not talking about the Battenbergs. They gave up their title at the request of George V. George V renounced the family's German titles for himself and all of the members of the family. I meant that hypothetically, calling Nicholas HSH Prince Nicholas of Saxe-Coburg, etc, would be like someone calling Prince Charles HRH Prince Charles of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Prince of Wales, Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Duke of Saxony, Prince of Greece and Denmark, etc. I didn't add all the rest of that when I wrote this the first time. But I was saying that this wouldn't make sense to say this about Lord Nicholas, because while the Battenbergs just stopped using their title, didn't the British Royal Family actually give theirs up? Morhange 22:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

George V had no more right to legally renounce Saxon titles for anyone other than himself than he did the German titles of the Battenbergs. Charles cannot use any Saxon titles. Those are only transmitted in the male-line. The British Royal Family merely stopped using the Saxon titles, much like Charles doesn't use the Greek or Danish titles. Charles 23:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

George V did not claim to have the legal right to "renounce Saxon titles for anyone other than himself". He revoked permission for them to be borne by British subjects in British territories -- which includes Lord Nicholas Windsor and Elizabeth II (but not the current Prince of Wales, who derives no such titles from George V). George V did have the right to renounce German titles for himself and his unborn or minor children if he'd had any in 1917, since German Princely Law permits nobles (and the title "Duke of Saxony" is a "noble" title in this sense, having been conferred by the Holy Roman Emperors as the Wettins' sovereign) to unilaterally renounce their titles, unlike holders of British titles.

More relevantly, Lord Nicholas Windsor would not be entitled to bear Saxon dynastic titles and styles because he is the son of a marriage contracted in violation of the laws of the Coburg dynasty, which is why the article's attribution to him of such styles and titles is incorrect and needs to be removed.Lethiere 18:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Education at Oxford

This article by Professor Noel Cox in Monarchy in New Zealand 12.2 (May 2007), p. 8 (p. 9 including the title page) claims that Lord Nicholas Windsor spent three years at Manchester College, Oxford (now Harris Manchester College, Oxford) for three years, first taking a one-year course in philosophy, and then a two-year degree in philosophy and theology. I think the details of the course are wrong. The usual thing is to spend two terms reading for the Preliminary Examination in Theology (there is not Preliminary Examination in Philosophy and Theology), taking a philosophy paper as part of that Examination, and then to spend seven terms reading for the Final Honour School of Philosophy and Theology. Other accounts say that Lord Nicholas did not finish this course: The Times and Sunday Mirror. Does anybody know which is correct?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Catholic Central Library

Apparently Lord Nicholas was a campaigner on behalf of the C C L in 2004: SHAKESPEARE, SEBASTIAN (May 21, 2004). "Bushy tales". The Evening Standard (London, England). http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-116948488.html. Retrieved 2008-07-25. "The 33-year-old son of the Duke and Duchess of Kent is leading a campaign to save the Catholic Central Library in North London from closing down. ..." but this citation has been removed as it leads to a stub version of the article.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

formerly 27th in line for the succession

the article for his father says that his father, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, is the 27th in line. I understand that someone can get bumped down by births to those higher-up the list - is that what happened here? Lord Nicholas was 27th when his father was 25th (an older brother), and now his father has been bumped down to 27th?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it appears Nicholas was 29th at the time he converted. This was the LoS in 2001:

• 1 The Prince of Wales
• 2 Prince William
• 3 Prince Harry
• 4 Duke of York
• 5 Princess Beatrice
• 6 Princess Eugenie
• 7 Earl of Wessex
• 10 Princess Royal
• 11 Peter Phillips
• 12 Zara Phillips
• 13 Viscount Linley
• 14 Charles Armstrong-Jones
• 15 Sarah Chatto
• 16 Samuel Chatto
• 17 Arthur Chatto
• 18 Duke of Glouster
• 19 Earl of Ulster
• 20 Lady Davina
• 21 Lady Rose
• 22 Duke of Kent
• 23 Lord Downpatrick
• 24 Lady Marina-Charlotte
• 25 Lady Amelia
• 26 Helen Taylor
• 27 Columbus Taylor
• 28 Cassius Taylor
• 29 Lord Nicholas

Morhange (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't Lord Nicholas precede his sister Helen in the succession? 91.113.82.161 (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

He's out so that question is moot. But why are his sons listed? Succession to the British throne? 40. 41, 42. He became Catholic before they were born and so he lost his place altogether. Plus they are RCs. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The actual BRF website once listed Nicholas' son Albert (and I *think* possibly also Leopold, but not the youngest, Louis, as they trimmed their list to only the Queen's descendants a few years ago) as being in the line of succession, but for some bizarre reason, listed them after Lady Helen and her children (which is probably why I accidentally put their dad as after his sister in the list I posted in 2010 above) which they wouldn't have been. Apparently it was assumed that only confirmation into the RC church excluded a person, based on the idea that Lord St. Andrews' two oldest children were removed upon confirmation, ignoring the fact that both Lord Downpatrick and Lady Marina Charlotte were initially baptised Anglican, while Nicholas' sons were baptised as Catholic. I don't understand why the BRF website included them or what their rationale. The original text excludes all and every Person and Persons who ... is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall profess the Popish Religion or shall marry a Papist. So I suppose it depends on the interpretation of what holding Communion means. Piratesswoop (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I sent an electronic mail message to Debrett's to ask why they include them. The reply indicated the possibility that Catholics could remain on the list until the point where the throne is presented, at which point they either become Protestant, or decline. I'm not knowledgeable in these things.Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

That would indicate that they remain in line until they are confirmed in the Catholic Church or refuse to take the Accession Council#Oaths. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Patron of Bromley Mind

Lord Nicholas Windsor has been the Patron of Bromley Mind for some time, now. How to insert this into the article?--86.31.105.33 (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oh! Oh! Oh! I know!

  Is the answer to find WP:Reliable sources that report on this, and then summarize those references? Geo Swan (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lord Nicholas Windsor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130719070027/http://www.nettyroyal.nl:80/ to http://www.nettyroyal.nl
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090912193217/http://www.dailymail.co.uk:80/news/article-1212593/Tarrants-ex-change-name.html to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212593/Tarrants-ex-change-name.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is his honourary title part of the article name...

Currently Nicholas Windsor redirects to Lord Nicholas Windsor. However, our policy is that honourary titles, and honorifics, like Mullah, Reverend, Doctor, Professor, should not be part of the article's name, except when it is required for disambiguation.

I suggest if this article complied with our standards, Lord Nicholas Windsor would redirect to Nicholas Windsor, and not vice versa.

If no one can explain why an exception should be made here, I am going to initiate steps to change the article's name to Nicholas Windsor. Geo Swan (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lord Nicholas Windsor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425051506/http://www.righttolifetrust.org.uk/patrons-trustees to http://www.righttolifetrust.org.uk/patrons-trustees
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111044647/http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/11/caesarrsquos-thumb to http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/11/caesarrsquos-thumb
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425051506/http://www.righttolifetrust.org.uk/patrons-trustees to http://www.righttolifetrust.org.uk/patrons-trustees

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lord Nicholas Windsor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131618273000/http://www.vogue.com/vogue-daily/article/my-royal-wedding-paola-de-frankopan-remembers-her-own-marriage-into-the-british-royal-family/ to http://www.vogue.com/vogue-daily/article/my-royal-wedding-paola-de-frankopan-remembers-her-own-marriage-into-the-british-royal-family/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141205050031/http://www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha/news/2006_1.html to http://www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha/news/2006_1.html
• Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20101103140224/http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/word/Draft%20List%20-%20Oct.doc to http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/word/Draft%20List%20-%20Oct.doc
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha/news/2007_1.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140129155919/http://www.christianheritagecentre.com/whoweare.html to http://www.christianheritagecentre.com/whoweare.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140226173120/http://www.christianheritagecentre.com/index.html to http://www.christianheritagecentre.com/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lord Nicholas Windsor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Replaced archive link x with https://web.archive.org/web/20131618273000/http://www.vogue.com/vogue-daily/article/my-royal-wedding-paola-de-frankopan-remembers-her-own-marriage-into-the-british-royal-family/ on http://www.vogue.com/vogue-daily/article/my-royal-wedding-paola-de-frankopan-remembers-her-own-marriage-into-the-british-royal-family/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sanjosearticles.com/?page_id=44

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)